their masters' families, is proverbially remarkable and affecting; and we appeal to the common judgment of mankind, whether minds, capable of cherishing these lofty and beautiful sentiments of our nature, can be wholly debased and brutified by oppression. And we say farther at the hazard of being thought to wander from the point, that, in the eyes of the political economist, as well as of the lover of humanity, it is some compensation for the evils of this system, that the communities in which it exists are comparatively free from the curse of pauperism, which, in free States, like an infernal shadow, dogs the heels of civilization, darkening at every step.

We make these statements, not to show, for they do not show, that slavery is not an evil, and a great one; but because we would deal fairly with every subject; because we like to contemplate every object in the light of truth, and to see it as it is; and because we really do not conceive that the welfare of the slave is likely to be promoted by our forming incorrect opinions, or cherishing unkindly sentiments towards the master. We do not think that we shall be likely to conciliate the good will of the latter, and obtain for ourselves a patient and candid hearing, by addressing him in the language of contumely and menace. We believe that we are absolutely injuring both parties, and we are sure we are not improving our own christian graces, by the tone of violence that marks the proceedings of the Anti-slavery Societies of the North. These proceedings, in the judgment of human reason at least, have already thrown back the cause of emancipation half a century. Those who will recur to the proceedings in the Virginia Legislature particularly, a few years since, will hardly fail to recognise the substantial truth of this remark. It is a strong and deep-rooted principle in human nature that prevents men not only from "giving reasons," but from acting reasonably, "on compulsion."

But, if abolitionists are worthy of rebuke, both on account of the object they pursue and the manner of pursuing it, the antiabolitionists, in our judgment, are no less so. The movements of the former we regard as ill-timed and injudicious, the results of an untamed and fanatical imagination; the counter-movements of the latter are unqualified violence and atrocious outrage.

While we are penning these very lines, our ears are assailed by the cries of an infuriate crowd, and the flames of a mobkindled conflagration are reddening the midnight heavens. The VOL. XXIV. 3D s. VOL. VI. NO. III.

52

very heart sickens at the scence; and reads by its lurid light dismal omens of the time to come. The immediate agents in such transactions, those that actually lay unholy hands on their neighbors' property or persons, are few in number, and worthy of small regard. They do but labor in their vocation. They are the devil's instruments, his servants of all work; ready at all times to do his bidding. They exist at all periods and in all communities; and their case presents nothing very new, or peculiarly alarming. The alarming fact in the case is, that apathy of the public mind, that ill-concealed satisfaction at the result, while a decent disapprobation of the agents and the manner is carefully expressed, which renders the perpetration of such outrages safe, or possible. This is the fact that presses on the minds of sober and reflecting men, and makes them tremble for the future. If these things are to be, if the frenzy of fanaticism is to be, ever and anon, checked and repressed by these outbursts of popular violence, then we say that no social institutions can sustain the shock. The tempest and deluge will prostrate all the barriers of society, and sweep away every vestige of law and order. The days of the republic are numbered and its destiny sealed.

M. L. H.

NOTICES AND INTELLIGENCE,

Proof of the Genuineness of the Writings of the New Testament: for intelligent readers of all classes. Translated from the German of Dr. H. OLSHAUSEN, with Notes, by DAVID FosDICK, Jr. Andover. 1838. 12mo. 216. p. It is the design

of this little book to present a proof of the genuineness of each book in the New Testament. Some idea may be formed of the general spirit of the writer from a single sentence, stating his reasons for not investigating the writings of the Old Testament. "To Christians, the testimony of Christ and his Apostles respecting the Old Testament, the canon of which was then completed, affords a much more certain evidence of its divine origin, (and thus of its genuineness,) than any historical reasoning could exhibit." p. ix. He affords us a very good summary of the evidence in favor of the Gospels. He admits that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and then himself translated the book into Greek, but omitted many passages. He thinks one Evangelist

sometimes made use of the writings of another, and all had recourse to short accounts of particular parts of the Gospel History, such as narratives of particular cases of healing, relations of journeys, and the like. When two writers use the same accounts, their language and statements will be the same. But much of

the similarity between them arises from oral narrations.

He maintains that Peter gave authority to the Gospel of Mark, and Paul to that of Luke; thus the writings of these two Evangelists are as valuable as the depositions of eye witnesses. They are in fact the Gospels of Peter and Paul. John wrote later than the other Evangelists, and aims to give the spirit of the Savior. The other three were the Xenophons, John was the Plato of Christ. He cites the Fathers who have spoken of the Gospels, though without reference to the portion of their books which he cites..

It is scarcely necessary to speak of his remarks upon the undisputed Epistles. His arguments, both the historic and the critical, are sound, well chosen, and satisfactory. He thinks Paul did not write the Epistle to the Hebrews, but that it was composed by some one under his influence. The book therefore is to be esteemed canonical. "Paul had an essential share in its composition.' Of the Catholic Epistles he receives the three of John and the first of Peter as undoubtedly genuine. But the second of Peter is suspicious. All doubts upon it cannot be obviated; yet we may obtain a subjective conviction of its genuineness. He makes almost the same remarks upon the Epistle of Jude. Indeed the two must stand or fall together. Epistle of James is not the work of an Apostle; nor is it confirmed by one of the twelve; but he was a man of authority and influence, and "a pillar" of the church. It is therefore justly placed in the canon. He defends the genuineness of the Revelation against the arguments of De Wette, but without success, as we think.

66

The

The work may be regarded as a valuable addition to our popular theological literature, though many will dissent from some of the author's conclusions. There are many pleasant thoughts scattered up and down its pages; many valuable remarks, and pious suggestions. But some of his assertions can scarcely be subscribed by any liberal-minded theologian. The following sentence is a good example. "Perhaps it is not too much to conclude, that the books of the Old Testament, which are not at all mentioned in the New, should be regarded very much as the so-called deutero-canonical [the apocryphal] books of the New Testament." - p. 211. But seventeen books of the Old are not directly

quoted in the New Testament.* Are all these of no better authority than the deutero-canonical books of the New Testament?

66

A History of the Corruptions of Christianity. By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL. D. In some parts abridged, with Appendices. By A. L. L. Keene, N. H. J. & J. W. Prentiss. 12mo. pp. 312. Dr. Priestley regarded this as one of the most useful of all his publications." At its first appearance, however, it met with much rough usage, being furiously assailed by the advocates of the established faith at home and abroad. Nay, to such phrenzy was the opposition carried, that in 1785 the work, according to Mr. Rutt, was "burnt by the common hangman in the city of Dort." All this only proves that it was felt at the time to be an able exposure of antiquated errors and abuses, which it was impossible to answer by fair argument. We are under obligations to the editor and publishers for this reprint; an enterprise, now that it is accomplished, which every one will wonder has been de layed so long. It fills a gap in the reading generally accessible to the majority of inquirers in this country, and this too as well perhaps as it could be filled by a new edition of any English book. The parts abridged are those which relate to topics the least interesting or valuable in the existing state of the controversies and divisions in the church, while the history of opinions respecting the trinity, atonement, original sin, &c., are given nearly entire. Hence, to guard against misapprehensions or unfair inferences, it is said in the Preface to the American reprint: "The views of Dr. Priestley differ much in several respects from those of a large portion of Unitarians. He is not to be taken as the representative of their faith; nor is any other single individual. Least of all, would those engaged in the present work undertake to defend all his opinions, or vouch for the soundness of all his reasonings. But where compelled to disagree with him, they cannot but love and respect his uniform and unequalled candor, good temper, love of truth, and moral independence. The following is a book of facts, not merely the statement of opinions; and though some may not agree with the author in all his inferences from his historical facts, yet all are here furnished with a storehouse of invaluable materials for making up independent judgments of their own on the subjects discussed." The Appendices" consist of short extracts from the writings of Dr. Channing, Mr. Norton, and others, which help to illustrate still further the matters in dispute, and add considerably to the worth of the volume.

66

* See Dr. Palfrey's Academic Lectures. Vol. 1. p. 24, note.

Associations, voluntary, dangers of, Complutensian Polyglot, some ac-
289.